Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   Old and busted: putting solar panels above parking lots. New hotness: putting solar panels ON parking lots   (gizmodo.com) divider line 37
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

1873 clicks; posted to Geek » on 09 May 2014 at 10:45 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



37 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-05-09 08:08:05 PM  
I'd like it for my driveway. It's empty most days.
 
2014-05-09 09:01:34 PM  
Yeah, they won't get covered with oil, dirt, grime, etc and be rendered useless.
 
2014-05-09 09:38:04 PM  
i.kinja-img.com

This could prove to be a hazard for people who are tripping balls.
 
2014-05-09 10:55:44 PM  
This has its limitations but it has potential.
 
2014-05-09 11:02:10 PM  

Walker: Yeah, they won't get covered with oil, dirt, grime, etc and be rendered useless.


If it was cheap enough and durable enough I could see it. Especially if the individual panels were easily replaceable. But yeah driving a heavy object with big squishy wheels is not really a durability test. Even with the bucket pressing down that still not much of a test. A good winter or two with plows and we will see how well it holds up. It's interesting and I hope it works out for them. But really I can't see this working well except in small driveways etc.
 
2014-05-09 11:07:53 PM  
Well, there are worse things you can throw a government grant at.

Parking lots are better of mounting the panels above the cars.  Cars get shade, we get power, everyone wins.
 
2014-05-09 11:10:26 PM  
img.fark.net
Acorn level fluh!
 
2014-05-09 11:31:37 PM  
pbs.twimg.com

Sure that'll work out just as well

/not
 
2014-05-09 11:47:43 PM  

DesertDemonWY: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x478]

Sure that'll work out just as well

/not


You know it doesn't snow 365 days a year.

/Just sayin'
 
2014-05-09 11:56:31 PM  

DesertDemonWY: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x478]

Sure that'll work out just as well

/not


Both sides are bad so burn more coal.
 
2014-05-10 12:08:06 AM  
Who cares about snow? They mentioned heating elements. Snow won't stick.
 
2014-05-10 12:33:20 AM  

Tellingthem: Walker: Yeah, they won't get covered with oil, dirt, grime, etc and be rendered useless.

If it was cheap enough and durable enough I could see it. Especially if the individual panels were easily replaceable. But yeah driving a heavy object with big squishy wheels is not really a durability test. Even with the bucket pressing down that still not much of a test. A good winter or two with plows and we will see how well it holds up. It's interesting and I hope it works out for them. But really I can't see this working well except in small driveways etc.


No snow plows. These will be able to melt snow, which honestly would be a better feature then the solar aspect which frankly will be minimal.
 
2014-05-10 12:36:35 AM  

Reverend J: DesertDemonWY: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x478]

Sure that'll work out just as well

/not

You know it doesn't snow 365 days a year.

/Just sayin'


When are most parking lots full? During the day. Snow, cars, dirt, whatever....it won't be very efficient.
 
2014-05-10 12:37:28 AM  

fusillade762: DesertDemonWY: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x478]

Sure that'll work out just as well

/not

Both sides are bad so burn more coal.


Both sides are bad so jettison a reliable power system for one where you don't know when you'll get it, how much you'll get, or how long you'll get it for. Oh, and bonus: it has to be heavily subsidized or nobody'll be able to afford it.
 
2014-05-10 12:56:13 AM  

jjorsett: Both sides are bad so jettison a reliable power system for one where you don't know when you'll get it, how much you'll get, or how long you'll get it for. Oh, and bonus: it has to be heavily subsidized or nobody'll be able to afford it.


In all fairness, this is getting better.

Not good, or "equal subsidies per kwh with natural gas*", but "Hey, maybe in 5-10 years, the issues will be because of the fundamental limits of the tech and NOT because it costs too damn much money".

*Which is largely responsible for the USA being the nation that's cutting both CO2 emissions AND coal dependency the fastest. Unlike Germany, who doubled down on solar and ended up using MORE coal.
 
2014-05-10 01:11:52 AM  
And they'll be stolen within a week.
 
2014-05-10 01:18:41 AM  

jjorsett: fusillade762: DesertDemonWY: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x478]

Sure that'll work out just as well

/not

Both sides are bad so burn more coal.

Both sides are bad so jettison a reliable power system for one where you don't know when you'll get it, how much you'll get, or how long you'll get it for. Oh, and bonus: it has to be heavily subsidized or nobody'll be able to afford it.


There has never been a bigger subsidy in history than the whole "Carbon emissions are free" subsidy.
 
2014-05-10 01:33:12 AM  
This is the future. The only problem I see is the initial cost. I don't see it replacing every highway in America unless some heavy government funding gets behind it, but I think it will replace some roads and walkways in urban areas that can afford it.  Silicon Valley, Las Vegas and Disney World might be some of those places.

It might be more cost effective to add these at intersections or in a single line at the center instead of trying to cover the whole damn thing.

Now if they could lower the price of solar panel roof shingles.
 
2014-05-10 02:50:23 AM  
I could easily see these on the top deck of parking garages, it seems like most of the ones around here only fill the top deck during special events.
 
2014-05-10 04:09:14 AM  

Theory Of Null: This is the future. The only problem I see is the initial cost. I don't see it replacing every highway in America unless some heavy government funding gets behind it, but I think it will replace some roads and walkways in urban areas that can afford it.  Silicon Valley, Las Vegas and Disney World might be some of those places.

It might be more cost effective to add these at intersections or in a single line at the center instead of trying to cover the whole damn thing.

Now if they could lower the price of solar panel roof shingles.


I don't think so. You need to keep solar panels at least somewhat clean to get good efficiency. One of the ways I can think of to really dirty something up is to drive a car across it a bunch of times. Placing solar panels flat is also not the most efficient orientation, driving cars across the panels, or worse yet, parking on them, shades them. Then there's the matter of the unobtainium top covering needed, which will be resistant to heavy vehicles, rough enough to provide good traction, yet polished sufficiently to be completely transparent. There are a metric shiat ton of problems with the plan. It's just somebody's designer baggage. Why it keeps getting recycled on here, I've no idea. Even your footpath idea kind of sucks for a lot of the same reasons, although at least there wouldn't be oil from the cars. There would be chewing gum, spilled food, and dogshiat, though.
 
2014-05-10 05:28:06 AM  

phimuskapsi: Reverend J: DesertDemonWY: [pbs.twimg.com image 850x478]

Sure that'll work out just as well

/not

You know it doesn't snow 365 days a year.

/Just sayin'

When are most parking lots full? During the day. Snow, cars, dirt, whatever....it won't be very efficient.


Go to a shopping mall monday-friday during the day... tell me how full they are. Go to a residential parking lot, like at my apartment building during the day... it's surely not full. Maybe you're just thinking of one particular kind of parking lot, and not really considering that all those cars in the parking lot during the day... they started out the morning somewhere, and that spot is gonna be empty all day.
 
2014-05-10 05:30:49 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: <strong><a data-farkhash="" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/8254473/90785596#c90785596" target="_blank">Theory Of Null</a>:</strong> <em>This is the future. The only problem I see is the initial cost. I don't see it replacing every highway in America unless some heavy government funding gets behind it, but I think it will replace some roads and walkways in urban areas that can afford it.  Silicon Valley, Las Vegas and Disney World might be some of those places.

It might be more cost effective to add these at intersections or in a single line at the center instead of trying to cover the whole damn thing.

Now if they could lower the price of solar panel roof shingles.</em>

I don't think so. You need to keep solar panels at least somewhat clean to get good efficiency. One of the ways I can think of to really dirty something up is to drive a car across it a bunch of times. Placing solar panels flat is also not the most efficient orientation, driving cars across the panels, or worse yet, parking on them, shades them. Then there's the matter of the unobtainium top covering needed, which will be resistant to heavy vehicles, rough enough to provide good traction, yet polished sufficiently to be completely transparent. There are a metric shiat ton of problems with the plan. It's just somebody's designer baggage. Why it keeps getting recycled on here, I've no idea. Even your footpath idea kind of sucks for a lot of the same reasons, although at least there wouldn't be oil from the cars. There would be chewing gum, spilled food, and dogshiat, though.


The only truly efficient solar panels are the ones in space around the sun. We shouldn't put solar panels on earth since it has clouds and gets dark.  Yeah, they would get dirty, but not as dirty as you think. they are glass after all.
 
2014-05-10 05:47:21 AM  
But I am sort of worried about oil and water making the glass slippery.  Patches of sprayed sand on the glass would probably fix that.
 
2014-05-10 08:42:50 AM  

phimuskapsi: When are most parking lots full? During the day. Snow, cars, dirt, whatever....it won't be very efficient.


Around here, the parking lot for larger commercial locations like shopping malls are basically NEVER full. Not even by half. They see more use as fairgrounds than customer parking.
=Smidge=
 
2014-05-10 08:53:54 AM  

Theory Of Null: This is the future. The only problem I see is the initial cost. I don't see it replacing every highway in America unless some heavy government funding gets behind it, but I think it will replace some roads and walkways in urban areas that can afford it.  Silicon Valley, Las Vegas and Disney World might be some of those places.

It might be more cost effective to add these at intersections or in a single line at the center instead of trying to cover the whole damn thing.

Now if they could lower the price of solar panel roof shingles.




I'm surprised that Disney hasn't tripped out EPCOT with this kind of stuff already throughout the park...if anything for their night time shows. I remember some pavilion thet EPCOT had when it first opened that had little sparkle lights in the floor that reacted when you walled on it.
 
2014-05-10 09:01:29 AM  
I'd like to have affordable solar roofing shingles...
 
2014-05-10 10:43:36 AM  
jjorsett:

Both sides are bad so jettison a reliable power system for one where you don't know when you'll get it, how much you'll get, or how long you'll get it for. Oh, and bonus: it has to be heavily subsidized or nobody'll be able to afford it.

To be fair, the whole thing shows an almost total lack of understanding of energy, but I've bolded the part where your argument loses all credibility so you can research and try again later. Best of luck!
 
2014-05-10 12:28:09 PM  
Figure out how much sun a flat surface needs for solar panels to be worth it.

Mandate that every rooftop that gets that much sun be equipped with solar panels.

Seriously.  Why is this so hard?
 
2014-05-10 12:42:53 PM  

Dafatone: Figure out how much sun a flat surface needs for solar panels to be worth it.

Mandate that every rooftop that gets that much sun be equipped with solar panels.

Seriously.  Why is this so hard?


Because republicans.
 
2014-05-10 12:45:43 PM  

Theory Of Null: forgotmydamnusername: <strong><a data-farkhash="" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/8254473/90785596#c90785596" target="_blank">Theory Of Null</a>:</strong> <em>This is the future. The only problem I see is the initial cost. I don't see it replacing every highway in America unless some heavy government funding gets behind it, but I think it will replace some roads and walkways in urban areas that can afford it.  Silicon Valley, Las Vegas and Disney World might be some of those places.

It might be more cost effective to add these at intersections or in a single line at the center instead of trying to cover the whole damn thing.

Now if they could lower the price of solar panel roof shingles.</em>

I don't think so. You need to keep solar panels at least somewhat clean to get good efficiency. One of the ways I can think of to really dirty something up is to drive a car across it a bunch of times. Placing solar panels flat is also not the most efficient orientation, driving cars across the panels, or worse yet, parking on them, shades them. Then there's the matter of the unobtainium top covering needed, which will be resistant to heavy vehicles, rough enough to provide good traction, yet polished sufficiently to be completely transparent. There are a metric shiat ton of problems with the plan. It's just somebody's designer baggage. Why it keeps getting recycled on here, I've no idea. Even your footpath idea kind of sucks for a lot of the same reasons, although at least there wouldn't be oil from the cars. There would be chewing gum, spilled food, and dogshiat, though.

The only truly efficient solar panels are the ones in space around the sun. We shouldn't put solar panels on earth since it has clouds and gets dark.  Yeah, they would get dirty, but not as dirty as you think. they are glass after all.


No, you put them on roofs. They get dirty there, too, but usually more slowly. Not enough roofs? Build more.
 
2014-05-10 12:50:20 PM  

Dafatone: Figure out how much sun a flat surface needs for solar panels to be worth it.

Mandate that every rooftop that gets that much sun be equipped with solar panels.

Seriously.  Why is this so hard?


Ah yes.  I remember being in fifth grade.  Back when all of the world's problems could be solved if only those old guys would just pass a law.
 
2014-05-10 12:53:40 PM  

aerojockey: Dafatone: Figure out how much sun a flat surface needs for solar panels to be worth it.

Mandate that every rooftop that gets that much sun be equipped with solar panels.

Seriously.  Why is this so hard?

Ah yes.  I remember being in fifth grade.  Back when all of the world's problems could be solved if only those old guys would just pass a law.


Would you prefer a carbon tax? That would work too.
 
2014-05-10 01:08:26 PM  
I love how armchair experts here think everything through so much more than the people who are making this happen. Because you know, they're morons and don't have brains themselves and don't spend their lives working this through.

I'm not saying this will definitely work or is some panacea, but does it have possibilities worth exploring? The department of transportation thinks enough of it to have given it some grants.
 
2014-05-10 01:17:13 PM  

MediaAreAllHacks: I love how armchair experts here think everything through so much more than the people who are making this happen. Because you know, they're morons and don't have brains themselves and don't spend their lives working this through.

I'm not saying this will definitely work or is some panacea, but does it have possibilities worth exploring? The department of transportation thinks enough of it to have given it some grants.


Just because the Feds drop money on it, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good or realistic proposal. They've pissed away money researching psychic phenomena for intelligence purposes, for example. Remember Reagan's Star Wars boondoggle? Sometimes the "armchair experts" are right, and the "visionary innovators" are peddling snake oil to the credulous or ill-informed.
 
2014-05-10 04:48:48 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: Just because the Feds drop money on it, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good or realistic proposal. They've pissed away money researching psychic phenomena for intelligence purposes, for example. Remember Reagan's Star Wars boondoggle? Sometimes the "armchair experts" are right, and the "visionary innovators" are peddling snake oil to the credulous or ill-informed.


Department of Transportation vs. Department of Defense.

In all honesty, if you managed to scrape together a database of all the boneheaded boondoggles funded by the private sector, I have a feeling the federal government would come out quite favorably in comparison.
=Smidge=
 
2014-05-10 06:41:31 PM  

Smidge204: forgotmydamnusername: Just because the Feds drop money on it, doesn't necessarily mean it's a good or realistic proposal. They've pissed away money researching psychic phenomena for intelligence purposes, for example. Remember Reagan's Star Wars boondoggle? Sometimes the "armchair experts" are right, and the "visionary innovators" are peddling snake oil to the credulous or ill-informed.

Department of Transportation vs. Department of Defense.

In all honesty, if you managed to scrape together a database of all the boneheaded boondoggles funded by the private sector, I have a feeling the federal government would come out quite favorably in comparison.
=Smidge=


Doesn't really address my contention that the government's showing interest is not at all a guarantee of viability. Sure, private industry funded Pets.com, too. Nothing magic about the private sector, no matter how bad my Republican friends want to believe otherwise. But it wasn't the Defense Dept. that funded Solyndra. And the DOE and Congress were largely responsible for Yucca Mountain, which was never a good idea, and most people who knew things about the local geology and hydrology were aware of that, and weren't listened to.
 
2014-05-11 08:11:26 AM  

forgotmydamnusername: Doesn't really address my contention that the government's showing interest is not at all a guarantee of viability.


Your contention is unfounded. Grant funding is not the same as initiative funding.

Anyone can apply for a grant, and there are basic rules and requirements for being awarded that grant. The funding mechanism is completely different from, say, a DoD project commissioning a study on psychic powers. In this case, the "government showing interest" in the project is at roughly the same level as the bank "showing interest" in you owning a house when they approve your mortgage, except the government isn't expecting a return since it's a grant and not a loan.

So I just clarified a bit on the idea that the government wastes a lot of money. It actually doesn't - government spending is typically quite efficient, they just don't always get good value for the money.
=Smidge=
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report